Forum:The "Blame Only America" Crowd
:Great title, no? This essay will be about the infamous "Blame Only America" crowd, who insist on using ad hominum attacks to further their agendas and do their best to put the blame of every possible evil on America. "It is America that is polluting the planet. It is America that is causing global warming." Even in the face of facts (e.g. Most countries won't meet their Kyoto protocal goals, but it's America's fault for not signing it.) :Anyone who finds resonance with this thesis is free to start this essay. As a reaction to the example given (note that I assume that 'America' here means 'the USA'). One excuse for the USA is that it's a big country (about 5% of the world population), but that also makes it an essential country, especially considering that it's one of the most energy-guzzling countries. Some countries may meet the Kyoto goals, but the big problem is that they are set way too low. The reason for that is that it was hard enough to get even these goals accepted and the stance of the US was a major contributor to that (maybe if it had been known on forehand that the US would not opt in, the goals would ahve been set higher). An added problem is that if some countries manage to reach these goals, that may lead to misplaced complacency. It sounds like a goal was reached, but many will forget that that was just a very first baby step towards the solution. And like I said, the US were essential in bringing this situation about. DirkvdM 09:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (not sure if I should sign this - first time user) :Thanks for signing your post! I agree that the Kyoto goals are too low, and I'm frustrated that my country (the USA) was the cause. I think we're going to lose a few million people in the next decade as climate change wrecks the biosphere. The human species has never dealt with the climate that we're moving into, and we'll have to cooperate globally to survive. Do I blame the US for this? Yes. But I'm not part of the 'blame only America' crowd. I think the people of the world have just as much power as we do to make change happen. And what is preventing them is fear of the US retaliation against them. From my perspective, the United States has lost our leadership position in the world thanks to the lunacy of our current national leadership, AND the lack of a strong opposition voice within our country. Internationally, the best way to fight against what George W. Bush is doing is for the people of the world to take control of their own governments and demanding that actions be taken. Not military, but financial, economic, political. That's why I'm as interested in the Montenegro election as my own local elections in 2006. Do whatever it takes from the outside, while people within the country do everything we can from the inside. The struggle began long ago, and will continue for a very long time to come. But if the people stand up, governments will change. The people are soverign. We all just need to wake up. Chadlupkes 15:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC) :: For other countries, signing the Kyoto Protocals was like making a promise with your fingers crossed behind your back. They'll try to meet them, but if they don't, it isn't a major issue. Due to the laws regarding treaties, if the US had signed them they would have the full effect of law, and the US would have to do everything within its power, including shutting down businesses, putting people out of work, raising taxex to astronomical levels, to meet the requirements. ::Yes, the environment is an important issue, but if the quality of health and life we have worked hard to achieve is lost then we are going in the wrong direction. We need to be able to come to a good compromise, to be able to live the lives we have AND protect our environment. One of the easiest ways to facilitate that is to use better alternatives, but most of the pro-environment crowd are afraid to embrace some alternatives, especially things like Hemp because it would lessen the control they have over other peoples' lives. Midian 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC) :::The US signed the Geneva Accords, and we're currently ignoring them. I think the trick is not to have our government force these types of changes, but for the people to want to make these changes, and for us to do it regardless of what the Government thinks. But I strongly disagree that complying with the Kyoto Protocals would have been bad for our economy. If we had followed Carter's plan that he put forward in 1978, we would currently have more energy coming from Solar and other renewable sources than we currently generate with foreign oil. Businesses would exist that don't exist now, more people would be working to help build the nation's infrastructure, our taxes would probably be lower because of the cost savings of not having to go to war every couple years to secure our energy fix, etc. :::We cannot choose between the environment and our quality of life, because they are not opposites on any scale that makes sense. We can't have one without the other, and the compromise is to do everything in our power as citizens and as a nation to reduce our dependence on carbon-based sources of energy and change the way we live. Our lives would be much better if we didn't have to worry about the next heat wave. :::Nobody in the environmental movement that I know is against the production of Hemp. That's an idea pushed by the multi-billion dollar prison industry. The notion that environmentalists want to control other peoples lives is totally false. It's an illusion thrown out into our media by those that already do control most of our lives, from what we see and hear to what we read and how we think. And the people and institutions that have that control nearly always lead back to the energy producers and distributors and their allies in the financial sector. :::We have to examine our assumptions and conclusions. We have to stop believing what we are told, and we have to start educating ourselves. If we don't, Kyoto's failure will be a minor point in a lost history of the great collapse of our global civilization, and our decendants will wonder what happened. Chadlupkes 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC) ::::Environmentalists have gotten themselves a bad rap by being against hunting (which helps preserve balance in nature), nuclear power (one of the cleanest power sources we currently have), and yes, hemp production. I can't recall a single Green or Democrat politician who has ever pushed a hemp or anti-gun control agenda, and most of us can remember vividly the anti-nuclear protests. ::::So many people love to point to the sun and say there is our solution. The fact is, here in Arizona (one of the sunniest states in the country) solar energy is not economically feasible. The city of Tucson just built a new parking structure covered with solar panels, and while it currently produces more electricity than the structure uses (which isn't much), it will take over 20 years to recoup the initial costs of just the solar array. Now try building that in a city like Seattle, and you won't even manage to do that. ::::Get the left on board with hemp and educate them about "...the rights of the people..." and I'd bet you'll see a great change in the country. If the Dems weren't so anti-personal freedom (2nd amendment, raising taxes, etc.) I'd be a Democrat myself. Midian 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC) :::::You're falling into the same trap with the Democratic party that the conservative movement wants us stuck in with the government. How can you expect the Democratic party to have people who advocate a pro-Hemp and anti-personal freedom platform if the people who have those positions don't participate in the development of that platform? I'm as progressive as anyone I know, often moreso. Because I define Progressive differently than the mainstream media does, and almost nobody knows what to do with me. It scares a lot of people, at least until I have a chance to explain my positions. :::::The second amendment is so misunderstood. It had nothing to do with freedom, at least the way we define it today. And I want to pay enough taxes so that my roads don't destroy my car, so that I have health insurance and a safety net in case I can't work anymore, and to fund the government that I approve of. I don't consider them to be high taxes, and I contrast them with the number of people I see on the street without jobs and without hope. :::::I know that solar power costs money, and that the payback is going to be years away. I'm not afraid of looking at long term investments that go beyond the next business cycle. I'm perfectly willing to invest in things that will take a generation to pay off. And I know they work, because they are working in Germany, Japan, China, and elsewhere around the world. :::::I'm not against hunting within the limits established by the Wildlife service. I'm against poaching that destroys a species by killing too many of them too fast. I'm only against Nuclear Power in the United States because I have yet to see any energy company or government agency be willing to clean up the mess, which can make some areas uninhabitable for half a billion years or more. If we could figure out how to deal with the waste products I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's not clean until we can stop the threat of future damage by dealing with the mess before it starts. And if we could stop this costly and useless War on Drugs, and deal with addiction as a medical problem instead of an excuse to pay the prison industry millions of dollars, Hemp could come back. But our current government won't allow that, because they see evils in the world that they must destroy, instead of problems that they must solve. Chadlupkes 17:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC) :::::"If the Dems weren't so anti-personal freedom (2nd amendment, raising taxes, etc.) I'd be a Democrat myself." The U.S.'s socially liberal party is anti-personal freedom? What about the Republicans who are actively abolishing our rights to free speech and privacy? As far as the hemp issue, I'd like to see your sources, because in my experience, Democrats are far more likely to be pro-hemp than Republicans. :::::Both parties certainly have their problems, but when it comes to personal freedoms, the Republican party, as it is today, is the antithesis. They've clearly abandoned the "small government" ideal (unless you count the goal of neutering and ultimately abolishing the legislative and judicial branches to boil the government down to a single authoritarian dictator). It sounds like you, like myself, fall somewhere within the 'libertarian quadrant'. Until we can change something, our two-party system will require people to choose the 'lesser of two evils' among those two parties, and if personal freedoms are important to you, that has to be the Democrats. --whosawhatsis? 20:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC) :::::: First, the biggest issue is the one thing that is the complete source of the politicians' power, taxes. And it is Democrats who consistently (since Kennedy) raise taxes, creating a larger, more inefficient goverment. Second, without the 2nd amendment, all the rest are meaningless. If you cannot fight to maintain your freedom, you don't have freedom. An unarmed populace is nothing more than sheep. :::::: Other ideals, such as equal opportunity for all, cannot happen as long as there are quotas. Forcing taxpayers to pay for things that are abhorent to them, like abortions. These are all things the Democrats are doing wrong. Get the Democrat party on board with the JFK ideal of what a Democrat is and it won't be just me who will convert. Midian 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC) :::::::If we ever need firearms to defend our rights, the legality of those weapons will be the least of our concerns. The military has weapons to defend the rest of us from external threats, and the police have them to protect us from each other. The only reason for any other U.S. citizens to take up arms in defense of their own rights would be civil war. :::::::I never said that the Democratic Party was perfect, or even the U.S.'s best political party, but "giving unto caesar what is caesar's" and being unable to put holes in fellow citizen without standing within stabbing distance is a small price to pay not to need a gun to protect rights like free speech and privacy. --whosawhatsis? 00:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC) :::::::: A resonable tax rate is acceptable. Constantly raising taxes just to grow the government beaurocracy is unacceptable. In this manner the current administration is as bad as the Democrat party, but the Republican party at least has a history of lowering taxes, where the Democrats have taken more of OUR money (not caesar's) consistently since Kennedy. :::::::: The Supreme Court has ruled the local police do not have the obligation to protect anyone. They are there to enforce the law only after it has been broken. I'd rather be able to shoot back than have the police find my killer after I'm bagged and tagged. :::::::: Privacy and free speech are being infringed on both sides, so this isn't a Democrat win either. Politcal correctness, book banning/burning, wiretaps, war on drugs, these are problems with both sides. Midian 19:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)